64 player servers - BIG mistake

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I have no problem with 64 player servers, although some of the maps are better suited for less players.

If server admins are pushing their servers because they don't meet the specs, that is a different issue.

As far as 64 player servers taking away the player base, well this game should have alot more players at this stage of its lifespan and you cannot blame server admins for setting up their servers 64 players. There are plenty of other reasons for this discussed elsewhere on the forums.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

I have no problem with 64 player servers, although some of the maps are better suited for less players.

If server admins are pushing their servers because they don't meet the specs, that is a different issue.

Agree 100% - Its sad to see some lump everything and everyone into their concept of an issue.

As far as 64 player servers taking away the player base, well this game should have alot more players at this stage of its lifespan and you cannot blame server admins for setting up their servers 64 players. There are plenty of other reasons for this discussed elsewhere on the forums.

"Taking away the player base"? We've been hearing that squawk since the onset of 64 player servers in RO! It was a faulty concept then and remains so now. There are excellent 64 player servers available to the community and there are sad ones too.

 

[Faneca]

I can play just fine (with a ~130ms ping) on Russian servers with 63 other players without any problem.

Get a decent rig and a good internet connection before you start whinning about TWI being bad you lazy tosser.

PS : The distance from Lisbon (capital of Portugal) to Moscow (capital of the Russian Federation) is about 3900 km (~2400 miles).

 

[dazman76]

Sweet spot is about 50 on a well-run, modern server that isn't being over-stretched.

I'd agree with that I haven't had terrible problems with ping on the 64 player servers I've been on, but they certainly can't seem to match the smaller ones. Ping aside, 64 does feel a bit over-crowded on most maps, and 50-slot servers seem to feel much better in that regard.

 

[Zeraphinos]

I love 64 slots servers Most intense combats firefights u have on such server. I wish if it is possibel to have more avaible slots then 64 would rly love it

 

[G_Sajer]

Some of my best map experiences have been on a 64 player server. If a server has one of the newer chipsets and is designed for this kind of load; no problem. 7thCav comes to mind. The 50pc TaT collaberation is another.
I don't experience lag on these servers. Others apparently do. But as usual, its the fault of TWI. Jeezus Wept!

 

[dazman76]

I love 64 slots servers Most intense combats firefights u have on such server. I wish if it is possibel to have more avaible slots then 64 would rly love it

When Planetside 2 arrives, it may well cater to your tastes I certainly have an eye on it. It won't replace "traditional" team FPS games like RO2 (I'll always have time for RO), but I think there will still be a place for it in my collection - especially with it being F2P

 

[radix]

*all* 64 player servers I've seen until now are under sized for that amount of players for an UE based engine. (especially RO). probabelly many servers run on virtualized hardware which can introduce a lot of jitter too.

But not only the server load the playing laggy. The server bandwidth and the client bandwidth too.

Also the client computer performance affect the lag feeling as it needs to process more data.

server icmp ping + server jitter + client jitter. -> real network ping / lag feeling.

this is not the same with the reported UE network ping. (the ping you see by pressing F1)

If you try running a 64 player server take the advice from Ramm seriously.

 

[Graphic]

Game was designed with 50 players in mind and they apparently changed it at the last minute to stack up better against BF3.

If you want proof, look at the scoreboard on a full 64 player server: it's 25 v 25 with the excess players cut off.

Not only does it make for bad gameplay (with the cluster**** mayhem AND the lag it causes) but smaller server sizes would spread the community out more so here on the west coast I'd have several mostly full servers to pick from instead of one or two full 64 player servers with ~10 that only have 6 people in them stat padding on bots.

 

[Schreq]

Crappy 50 player servers almost killed roost public already. Now it's the same with 64. Not only are most servers not strong enough for that amount of players, but also it is killing the fps on your client and gets unplayable.

The funny thing, when you wrote "server is dying" in roost, people responded as there was nothing wrong and even wondered... So yeah, only in ro it's possible that people find it acceptable to play with <50 fps and 150 ping due to tickrate on its knees. I'm sure it's even worse for guys with already low fps. For me fps literally gets cut in half or even worse just because of the amount of players.

 

[Borkac]

if i play on servers with less slots i feel like playing with ghosts mate

 

[TDuke]

Game was designed with 50 players in mind and they apparently changed it at the last minute to stack up better against BF3.

If you want proof, look at the scoreboard on a full 64 player server: it's 25 v 25 with the excess players cut off.

Not only does it make for bad gameplay (with the cluster**** mayhem AND the lag it causes) but smaller server sizes would spread the community out more so here on the west coast I'd have several mostly full servers to pick from instead of one or two full 64 player servers with ~10 that only have 6 people in them stat padding on bots.

100% agree
Too lag, to many performances issues, maps to small and finally, non much so much players to have 64 players server. 40 or 50 at max would be enough for me.

 

[wazups2x]

About 48 players seems to be the perfect amount, IMO. Less lag and better gameplay.

 

[tixhal]

i like servers with 32-50 slots. i tried several 64 player servers, none of them were playable imo. i don't understand how people can enjoy playing with a ping that jumps from 100-300 and back all the time. even the larger maps play very nicely with 40 players, and the performance and ping are more stable.

 

[crackermachine]

wtb 128 player servers

 

[slyder73]

I've actually have some good pings on a 64 player server.

But I do agree with the maps. They seem pretty small to hold 64 people along with tanks in some maps. It keeps the fighting intense, but a bit too intense. I see what they were trying to do, make it so you don't have to sprint long distances to battle, keep everyone bundled up. But eh.

I see a lot of 40-50 player servers, and they seem to have nice pings. It's not forced upon server admins to set up a 64 player server anyways, so it's nothing to whine about. I've actually find smaller amounts of people (16 or 32) to be a great amount to fit in the maps. But let's leave those beast servers to when more, larger maps come out. With halftracks and tanks.

What I am wondering is if the issues that MANY experience with the lag on 64 person servers is the game, or is it the clan/individual providing the server isn't paying for the better service than can support 64 person servers?
Some 64's have gone to 50 and the ping and related issues dissapeared. One 64 to 50 has gone back up to 64 and I have only been on one night but the issues seem to have disappeared. Was this a game fix in a patch or was this the clan paying for a better server provider or bandwidth?

I agree with everyone who says the more the better, I'd love 128 person servers or more, but understand them internets can't yet handle that. 64 is great, but many 64's seem to have the same issues.

 

[AntoxaGray]

For 64 players, spawn times should be increased greatly, so it's not that chaotic. But it will be boring for people to play with 1 minute spawn times.

 

[The Beast (nl)]

Just played a 64 server after the last patch.

I had a ping of 180 but it didn`t matter. I had no lag or whatsoever.
Even with the artillery it kept good.

 

[tixhal]

a ping of 180ms is rather high, but if it's stable people can adapt to it. what bothers me most, is that the ping varies like crazy on 64 player servers. if it would be stable i would play on those more often.